August 2018 - Rushcliffe · or regionally important nature conservation importance. ... (GCN) recorded present within the site. Onsite terrestrial habitats were sub-optimal and only

BSL Strategic Ltd

Land off Church Street, Cropwell Bishop

ECOLOGICAL APPRAISAL

August 2018

Land off Church Street, Cropwell Bishop Ecological Appraisal fpcr

K:\8400\8424\ECO\Eco App\8424 Ecoapp Finalrg.DocxK:\8400\8424\ECO\Eco App\8424 Ecoapp Finalrg.Docx

FPCR Environment and Design Ltd

Registered Office: Lockington Hall, Lockington, Derby DE74 2RH Company No. 07128076. [T] 01509 672772 [F] 01509 674565 [E] [email protected] [W] www.fpcr.co.uk This report is the property of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd and is issued on the condition it is not reproduced, retained or disclosed to any unauthorised person, either wholly or in part without the written consent of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. Ordnance Survey material is used with permission of The Controller of HMSO, Crown copyright 100018896.

Rev Issue Status Prepared / Date Approved / Date

- Draft 1 HET / 03.08.18 RG / 24.08.18

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.fpcr.co.uk/


K:\8400\8424\ECO\Eco App\8424 Ecoapp Finalrg.DocxK:\8400\8424\ECO\Eco App\8424 Ecoapp Finalrg.Docx

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2

2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 3

3.0 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 19

5.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 27

TABLES

Table 1: Bat Survey Protocol for Trees

Table 2: HSI Score and Suitability for Supporting Great Crested Newts

Table 3: Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

Table 4: Summary of the Extent of the Hedgerows and their Ecological Value

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photograph 1: Arable land looking south-west

Photograph 2: Field margin adjacent to hedgerow H1 looking north

Photograph 3: Culvert and channel looking north

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Botanical Species List

Appendix B: Habitat Suitability Index Scores

FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Location and Consultation Results Plan

Figure 2: Phase 1 Habitat Plan

Figure 3: Waterbody Location Plan


1

K:\8400\8424\ECO\Eco App\8424 Ecoapp Finalrg.Docx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BSL Strategic Ltd. commissioned FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. to undertake a

preliminary ecological appraisal of an area of land located to the north-east of Church

Street, Cropwell Bishop. The objective was to determine the habitats and species present

within the site and to make an initial assessment of the ecological value of the site and any

potential ecological constraints to future residential development.

An arable field with associated poor semi-improved grassland margins forms the majority

of the site. Other habitats present include tall ruderal, scattered scrub, hedgerows, trees

and a wet ditch. Residential development bounds the site to the west.

The site does not fall within the designation boundary of any site of international, national

or regionally important nature conservation importance. Neither does it fall within the

designation boundary of any site which has been afforded a local non-statutory

designation for its nature conservation importance.

The site currently has a low biodiversity value. Existing arable land and associated poor

semi-improved grassland margins will be removed, however this loss will be mitigated via

the creation of a network of residential gardens and public green infrastructure that will

incorporate native species rich grassland, tree and shrub planting. Furthermore, it is

recommended that habitats along the banks of a wet ditch to the north and north-west of

the site are enhanced to provide a continuous habitat corridor suitable to facilitate the

movement of wildlife around the site. As a result it is anticipated that the development

would result in no overall net loss to biodiversity, and has potential to provide a minor nett

gain at the site level.

A single badger record was identified within the search area via the desk top study,

however no evidence of badger was recorded during the survey.

The intensively managed arable land was considered to be of negligible suitability for use

by foraging / commuting bats, with suitable habitats largely confined to the hedgerows,

trees and scattered scrub around the site perimeter.

There was no suitable breeding habitat for great crested newt (GCN) recorded present

within the site. Onsite terrestrial habitats were sub-optimal and only likely to provide

limited foraging / resting place habitat in association with the boundary hedgerows and

small areas tall ruderal vegetation. A total of six waterbodies were present within 500m of

the site; five of which were located more than 250m from the site. Most were considered

of sub-optimal quality for use by GCN and largely isolated from the site by barriers to

dispersal and the presence of sub-optimal intervening habitat. The likelihood of this

species using the site is therefore considered to be negligible.

The trees and hedgerows provide suitable nesting opportunities for a range of common /

widespread bird species.

There was limited suitable habitat for reptiles present on site, and the site was considered

unsuitable to support a viable reptile population.


2


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BSL Strategic Ltd. commissioned FPCR Environment and Design Ltd. to undertake a

preliminary ecological appraisal of an area of land, approximately 6.04ha in size, located to

the north-east of Church Lane, Cropwell Bishop (central OS grid reference: SK 687 358).

1.2 The objective of the study was to determine habitats and species present within a defined

boundary (hereafter referred to as the site) and to make an initial assessment of their

ecological value and any potential ecological constraints to future development of the site.

Additional objectives were, where appropriate, to identify any requirement for additional

ecological surveys, and to consider opportunities for ecological mitigation and enhancement

within any future development design.

1.3 The site is located on the eastern edge of the village of Cropwell Bishop, Nottinghamshire

(Figure 1). Residential dwellings along Church Street border the site to the west and

Cropwell Bishop sewage works lies to the north. Immediately south of the site is Cropwell

Bishop Primary School. The village of Cropwell Bishop extends from the western boundary

and arable land surrounds the site to the north, east and south and forms much of the wider

countryside.

1.4 The site comprised part of an arable field compartment, which extended beyond the site

boundary to the east. The associated field margins supported species poor semi-improved

grassland. The field boundaries included shared boundaries with neighbouring domestic

properties, a native hedgerow and scattered scrub. Other habitats present included tall

ruderal, hedgerows, trees and a wet ditch.

Proposed Development

1.5 The proposals are for residential development with associated gardens, access roads and

green infrastructure.


3


2.0 METHODOLOGY

Desk Study

2.1 A consultation exercise was completed with statutory and non-statutory nature conservation

organisations for baseline ecological information from the preceding 20 years. The search

area for biodiversity information was related to the significance of sites and species and

potential zones of influence, as follows:

minimum of 10km around the application area for sites of International Importance (e.g.

Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), Special Protection Areas (SPA), Ramsar sites);

2km around the application area for sites of National or Regional Importance (e.g. Sites of

Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and and species records (e.g. legally protected or

notable species);

1km around the application site for non-statutory sites of County or Local Importance (e.g.,

Local Wildlife Sites (LWS)), statutory sites of Local Importance (e.g. Local Nature

Reserves (LNR));

2.2 Organisations consulted included:

Natural England via the Multi Agency Geographic Information for the Countryside

(MAGIC) website (www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx);

NBGRC – Nottinghamshire Biological and Geological Record Centre

2.3 Further inspection, using colour 1:25,000 OS base maps (www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk) and

aerial photographs from Google Earth (www.maps.google.co.uk), was also undertaken in

order to provide additional context and identify any features of potential importance for nature

conservation in the wider countryside.

Extended Phase 1 Survey

Field Survey

2.4 A phase 1 habitat survey was completed on 20th April 2018. The survey technique adopted

for the habitat assessment followed standard methodologies recommended by Natural

England1. This comprised a walkover of the site, mapping and describing the broad principal

habitat types and identifying the dominant plant species present within each habitat type and

any invasive weeds (where present). Whilst the plant species lists obtained should not be

regarded as exhaustive, sufficient information was obtained to determine broad habitat types.

2.5 Throughout the habitat survey consideration was additionally given to the actual or potential

presence of protected species, such as, although not limited to those protected under the

1 JNCC 2010. Handbook for Phase 1 habitat survey - a technique for environmental audit.

http://www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk/MagicMap.aspx


4


Wildlife and Countryside Act 19812 (as amended), the Protection of Badgers Act 1992

3 and

the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 20174.

Hedgerow Assessment

2.6 Hedgerows were surveyed using the Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS)5. The

aim of the assessment is to allow the rapid recording and ecological appraisal of any given site

in the UK, and to allow the grading of the individual hedgerows present, in order to identify

those which are likely to be of greatest significance for wildlife. This method of assessment

includes noting down: canopy species composition, associated ground flora and climbers,

structure of the hedgerow including height, width and gaps, associated features including

number and species of mature tree and the presence of banks, ditches and grass verges.

2.7 The HEGS methodology provides a grade, used to assign a nature conservation value for

each hedgerow as follows:

1 = high to very high value,

2 = moderately high to high value,

3 = moderate value,

4 = low value.

2.8 Hedgerows graded -2 or above are suggested as being a nature conservation priority.

2.9 The hedgerows were also assessed for their potential ecological value under the Hedgerow

Regulations 1997 (Statutory Instrument No: 1160)6 to determine whether they qualified as

‘Important Hedgerows’ under the Regulations7. An assessment of archaeological importance

as defined under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997 was beyond the scope of this assessment.

2.10 Hedgerows were also assessed to determine if they met the habitat descriptions for

Hedgerow Habitat of Principal Importance as listed within Section 41 of the Natural

Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, (i.e. whether they consisted of 80%

or more native species) or Priority Habitat as listed within the Bedfordshire and Luton BAP.

Species

2.11 During the survey, observations, identification and signs of any species protected under the

following list of Acts and Regulations were noted:

Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

The Protection of Badgers Act 1992

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017

2 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). [Online]. London: HMSO Available from

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 [Accessed 09/04/2016] 3 The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 (as amended). [Online]. London: HMSO Available from:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents [Accessed 09/04/2016]. 4 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 – Statutory Instrument 2017 No.1012. [Online]. London:

HMSO. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/1012/contents/made [Accessed 07/12/2017]. 5 Clements, D. and Toft, R. 1992. Hedgerow Evaluation and Grading System (HEGS), A methodology for the ecological

survey, evaluation and grading of hedgerows. 6 The Hedgerow Regulations 1997 – Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1160. [Online]. London: HMSO. Available at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made [Accessed 09/04/2016]. 7 DEFRA. 1997. The Hedgerow Regulations 1997. A Guide to the Law and Good Practice. London: HMSO

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/51/contents

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1160/contents/made


5


NERC Act 2006 S41 species of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity.

2.12 Given the nature of the habitats within and immediately surrounding the site, particular

consideration was given to the potential presence of birds, bats, badger, amphibians and

reptiles. In addition to evidence of field signs, the suitability of habitats to support these

species was assessed, for example the suitability of mature trees to support roosting bats.

2.13 Whilst on site, additional species records were made where appropriate in order to make an

initial appraisal of the presence of other species of nature conservation importance.

Badger

2.14 All hedgerows and other suitable habitats within the development boundary and accessible

land within 30m were searched for evidence of badger Meles meles activity. Methodology

employed followed that outlined by Harris, Creswell and Jefferies12

.

2.15 Evidence of badger occupation and activity sought included:

Setts: including earth mounds, evidence of bedding and runways between setts;

Latrines: often located close to setts, at territory boundaries or adjacent to favoured

feeding areas;

Prints and paths or trackways;

Hairs caught on rough wood or fencing;

2.16 Other evidence: including snuffle holes, feeding and playing areas and scratching posts

2.17 The status and the level of activity of setts identified were noted as follows:

Main sett: usually continuously used with significant signs of activity, including a large

number of holes and conspicuous spoil mounds;

Annexe sett: usually found close to a main sett and connected to it by well used paths.

Such setts may not be continuously occupied;

Subsidiary sett: lesser-used setts usually comprising a few holes and without associated

well-used paths. Such setts are not continuously occupied;

Outlier sett: one or two holes without obvious paths, with a very sporadic use.

2.18 With the level of activity described as:

Active: clear of debris, trampled spoil mounds and obviously active e.g. presence of prints,

dislodged guard hairs;

Partially active: some associated debris/moss/plants in the entrance. Could be used with

minimal amount of excavation, usually with signs in the vicinity of the sett e.g. badger paths.

12

Surveying for badgers. Harris, S., Cresswell, P. & Jefferies, D. 1989. Occasional Publication of the Mammal Society No. 9

Mammal Society, Bristol.


6


Bats

Ground Level Tree Assessment

2.19 The trees on site were assessed from ground level during the Phase 1 Habitat Survey for

their potential to support roosting bats and to enable recommendations with respect to the

proposed works. During the survey potential roosting features for bats such as the following

were sought (based on p16, British Standard, Surveying for Bats in Trees and Woodland)13

:

Natural holes (e.g. knot holes) arising from naturally shed branches or branches

previously pruned back to a branch collar.

Man-made holes (e.g. cavities that have developed from flush cuts or cavities created by

branches tearing out from parent stems.

Woodpecker holes.

Cracks/splits in stems or branches (horizontal and vertical)

Partially detached, loose or platy bark.

Cankers (caused by localised bark death) in which cavities have developed.

Other hollows or cavities, including butt rots.

Compression of forks with occluded bark, forming potential cavities.

Crossing stems or branches with suitable roosting space between.

Ivy stems with diameters in excess of 50mm with suitable roosting space behind (or where

roosting space can be seen where a mat of thinner stems has left a gap between the mat

and the trunk).

Bat or bird boxes.

Other suitable places of rest or shelter not listed above.

2.20 Certain factors such as orientation of the feature, its height from the ground, the direct

surroundings and its location in respect to other features, may reduce enhance or reduce the

potential value.

2.21 Based on the above, trees were classified into general bat roost potential groups based on

the presence of such features. Table 1 broadly classifies the potential categories as

accurately as possible as well as discussing the relevance of the features. This table is

broadly based upon Table 4.1 and Chapter 6 in Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists:

Good Practice Guidelines14

.

Although the British Standard Document2 groups trees with moderate and high potential,

these have been separated in Table 1 (as per Table 4.1 in The Bat Conservation Trust

Guidelines) to allow more specific survey criteria to be applied.

* The Conservation of Habitats & Species Regulations 2017 affords protection to “breeding sites” and

“resting places” of bats. The EU Commission’s Guidance document on the strict protection of animal

13

British Standard 2015. BS 8596:2015 Surveying for bats in trees and woodland – Guide, October 2015. 14

Bat Conservation Trust 2016. Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists: Good Practice Guidelines 3rd Edition. Bat

Conservation Trust, London.


7


species of Community interest under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC, February 2007 states that these

are places “where there is a reasonably high probability that the species concerned will return”.

Table 1: Bat Survey Protocol for Trees

Classification of Tree*

Description of Category and Associated Features (based on Potential Roosting Features listed above)

Likely Further Survey work / Actions

Confirmed Roost

Evidence of roosting bats in the form of live / dead bats, droppings, urine staining, mammalian fur oil staining, etc.

A Natural England derogation licence application will be required if the tree or roost site is affected by the development or proposed arboricultural works. This will require a combination of aerial assessment by roped access bat workers (where possible, health and safety constraints allowing) and nocturnal survey during appropriate periods (e.g. nocturnal survey - May to August) to inform on the licence.

Works to tree undertaken under supervision in accordance with the approved good practice method statement provided within the licence.

However, where confirmed roost site(s) are not affected by works, work under a precautionary good practice method statement may be possible.

High Potential

A tree with one or more Potential Roosting Features that are obviously suitable for larger numbers of bats on a more regular basis and potentially for longer periods of time due to their size, shelter protection, conditions (height above ground level, light levels, etc) and surrounding habitat. Examples include (but are not limited to); woodpecker holes, larger cavities, hollow trunks, hazard beams, etc.

Aerial assessment by roped access bat workers (if appropriate) and / or nocturnal survey during appropriate period (May to August).

Following additional assessments, a tree may be upgraded or downgraded based on findings.

If roost sites are confirmed and the roost is affected by proposals a licence from Natural England will be required.

After completion of survey work (and the presence of a bat roost is discounted), a precautionary working method statement may still be appropriate.

Moderate Potential

A tree with Potential Roosting Features which could support one or more potential roost sites due to their size, shelter protection, conditions (height above ground level, light levels, etc) and surrounding habitat but unlikely to support a roost of high conservation status (i.e. larger roost, irrespective of wider conservation status).

Examples include (but are not limited to); woodpecker holes, rot cavities, branch socket cavities, etc.

A combination of aerial assessment by roped access bat workers and / or nocturnal survey during appropriate period (May to August).

Following additional assessments, a tree may be upgraded or downgraded based on findings.

After completion of survey work (and the presence of a bat roost is discounted), a precautionary working method statement may still be appropriate.

If a roost site/s is confirmed and the roost site is affected a licence from Natural England will be required.

Low Potential

A tree of sufficient size and age to contain Potential Roosting Features but with none seen from ground or features seen only very limited potential.

Examples include (but are not limited to); loose/lifted bark, shallow splits

No further survey required but a precautionary working method statement may be appropriate.


8


Classification of Tree*

Description of Category and Associated Features (based on Potential Roosting Features listed above)

Likely Further Survey work / Actions

exposed to elements or upward facing holes.

Negligible/No potential

Negligible/no habitat features likely to be used by roosting bats

None.

Foraging / Commuting Habitat

2.22 The potential for the site and immediate surrounds to support foraging and/or commuting bats

was also assessed, with particular regard being given to the presence of continuous treelines,

brooks and hedgerows providing habitat connectivity within the landscape, and the presence

of varied habitat such as scrub, woodland, grassland and open water in the vicinity.

Great Crested Newt

2.23 As part of the Phase 1 habitat survey a habitat suitability index (HSI) assessment was

undertaken on accessible ponds within 500m of the survey area where suitable habitat

connectivity for great crested newts (GCN) was identified using OS mapping and aerial

photographs. This assessment provides a measure of the likely suitability that a water-body

has for supporting GCN15,16

.

2.24 Whilst not a direct indication of whether or not a water body will support GCN, generally those

with a higher score are more likely to support this species than those with a lower score, and

there is a positive correlation between HSI scores and occurrence of GCN within ponds.

2.25 Ten separate attributes are assessed for each pond to calculate the suitability of the ponds to

support GCN:

Location within the UK Presence of water-fowl

Pond area Presence of fish

Frequency of pond drying Number of other ponds within 1km

Water quality Quality of surrounding terrestrial habitat

% shade % cover by macrophytes

2.26 A score is assigned according to the most appropriate criteria level set within each attribute

and a total score calculated of between 0 and 1. Pond suitability is then determined

according to the scale set out in Table 2. Using the index score the predicted presence of GCN

being found within a pond can be made, based on the proportion of ponds typically occupied at

that suitability level.

15

Oldham et al., October 2000. Evaluating the Suitability of Habitats for the Great Crested Newt (Triturus cristatus),

Herpetological Journal 10 (4). 16

ARG UK Advice Note 5 Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index, Amphibian and Reptile Groups of the UK, May 2010.


9


Table 2: HSI Score and Suitability for Supporting Great Crested Newts

HSI score Pond Suitability

<0.5 Poor

0.5 - 0.59 Below average

0.6 – 0.69 Average

0.7 – 0.79 Good

>0.8 Excellent

Reptiles

2.27 Habitats were evaluated during the Phase 1 habitat survey for their potential to support

reptiles following guidance set out within the Herpetofauna Workers Manual17

, the Froglife

Advice Sheet 1018

. The assessment of suitability involved a review of habitats and habitat

structure to provide suitable shelter for reptiles, such as areas of scrub, grassland with well-

developed and varied structure, south facing banks and field margins, together with other

areas which provide basking and sheltering opportunities.

Other Species

2.28 The potential for other protected and/or notable species was assessed during the Phase 1

habitat survey. Bird species present at the time of survey were also noted, to determine the

presence of any species of conservation concern20

.

17

Gent, T. and Gibson, S. 1998. Herpetofauna Workers’ Manual. JNCC, Peterborough. 18

Froglife, 1999. Reptile survey: an introduction to planning, conducting and interpreting surveys for snake and lizard

conservation. Froglife Advice Sheet 10. Froglife, Halesworth. 20

Eaton, M.A., Aebischer, N.J., Brown, A.F., Hearn, R.D., Lock, L., Musgrove, A.J., Noble, D.G., Stroud, D.A. & Gregory, R.D.

2015. Birds of Conservation Concern 4: the population status of birds in the United Kingdom, Channel Islands and Isle of Man. British Birds 108:708-746.


10


3.0 RESULTS

Desk Study

3.1 The locations of statutory and non-statutory sites referred to in the following section are

illustrated on Figure 1: Site Location & Consultation Results Plan.

Statutory Designations

3.2 The site does not fall within the designation boundary of any site of international, national or

regional nature conservation importance.

3.3 There were no sites of international importance present within 15km, or any sites of national

importance within 2km of the application.

Non-Statutory Designations

3.4 Consultation data returned from the NBRC identified the presence of three LWSs within 1km

of the proposed development. A summary of these sites is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Statutory and Non-Statutory Designated Sites

Site Name (Ref: Fig 1)

Designation Approximate Distance from Site and Relative Direction

Size (ha)

Summary description

Non-Statutory

Hoehill Pasture LWS 520m west 2.5 A rich, dry calcareous grassland community.

Grantham Canal (Hollygate Bridge to Kinoulton)

LWS 680m west 15.1

A long stretch of disused canal providing a good variety of aquatic, marsh, and dry grassland communities.

Cropwell Bishop Gypsum Spoil

LWS 790m south 5.6 Gypsum spoil colonized by a variety of notable native and non-native plant species.

Protected/Notable Species

3.5 No protected or notable species records were provided from within the site boundary,

however several were returned from within the search area, mainly bat and water vole

records. A summary of the records considered to be of particular relevance to the study is

provided below and the location of these records is shown at Figure 1.

Reptiles & Amphibians

3.6 Three grass snake Natrix helvetica records (dated 2004-2012) were returned from

approximately 1.7km north-west and 0.97km south of the application site, including one

record from the Gypsum Spoil LWS.

3.7 Two records of common frog Rana temporaria (2003 & 2004) and three common toad Bufo

bufo records (2003-2012) were returned located between 0.97-1.4km, mostly from within the

vicinity of Grantham Canal LWS.

3.8 Three GCN records (2003-2005) and two smooth newt Lissotriton vulgaris records (1999 &

2003) were also returned, all located approximately 1.5km to the north-west.


11


Mammals

3.9 A single badger sett record was returned (dated 2014).

3.10 Four water vole Arvicola amphibious records (1995-2004) were returned from between 0.95

and 1.6km south of the site, associated with Grantham Canal.

3.11 Three brown hare Lepus europeaus records (2002-2015) and a single hedgehog Erinaceus

europaeus (2016) record were returned from 0.15-0.72km south and east of the site. Both

species are considered species of principle importance under the NERC Act 2006.

Bats

3.12 A small number of bat roost records were returned with dates ranging between 1999-2005, all

located between 0.25 and 1.8km from the site, lying to the south or north west. Roost

records included an unconfirmed bat species roost, unconfirmed Pipistrellus species roost, a

Myotis species roost, a brown long-eared bat roost and a Brant’s/whiskered bat roost,

however the roost type was not confirmed for any of the records

3.13 A number of activity records were also returned, mostly associated with previous bat surveys

to the east of the site and farms to the south. Dates ranged between 1998 and 2016 and

species included common pipistrelle Pipistrellus pipistrellus, soprano pipistrelle P. pygmaeus,

brown long-eared bat Plecotus auritus, noctule Nyctalus noctula, Daubenton’s bat Myotis

daubentonii and a single barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus record. Additional records

identified to genus level included unidentified Myotis species and Pipistrellus species.

Birds

3.14 Due to the large volume of bird data returned, recorded locations of individual species have

not been mapped, however the central locations from which significant bird assemblages

have been recorded are shown on Figure 1. The dates of records ranged between 2008 and

2009 and were from only two locations within the residential area of Cropwell Bishop

c.0.19km to the south, and 0.92km north of the application site respectively.

3.15 Bird records included a large number of species listed on the RSPB Red and Amber Birds of

Conservation Concern20

including bullfinch Pyrrhula pyrrhula, black-headed gull

Chroicocephalus ridibundus, starling Sturnus vulgaris, yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella,

linnet Linaria cannabina, lapwing Vanellus vanellus and lesser redpoll Acanthis cabaret, and

a barn owl Tyto alba (Schedule 1 species) nest box record.

Invertebrates

3.16 Single field observations of five different species of dragonfly were returned, associated with

Grantham Canal c.1.2km south of the site.


12


Habitats

Overview

3.17 The site is located within a largely agricultural setting on the eastern edge of Cropwell Bishop

and forms part of a larger arable field compartment. Boundary hedgerows were largely

species-poor or formed domestic boundaries dominated by non-native species. Arable field

margins were present along the southern, western and northern boundaries and varied in

width but resembled poor semi-improved grassland. A wet ditch ran along the western

boundary, the banks of which were dominated by tall ruderal vegetation.

3.18 The habitats described below correspond to those mapped at Figure 2 (Phase 1 Habitat Plan).

Plant species recorded during the survey are listed in Appendix A.

Arable Land

3.19 The site comprised part of a larger arable field which was ploughed at the time of the survey

(Photograph 1). Floral diversity was low with the occasional rare occurrence of species within

the field margins that had encroached including dandelion Taraxacum sp. agg., field

speedwell Veronica persica and garlic mustard Alliaria petiolate.

Photograph 1: Arable land looking south-west

Arable Field Margins

3.20 The arable margins were well developed (Photograph 2) as they had not been subjected to

regular disturbance during ploughing and harvesting, which typically reduces field margin

width and diversity. The margins were 1-3m wide, with the widest margins recorded along

the southern boundary adjacent to the existing residential area.

3.21 The margins comprised poor semi-improved grassland where the sward height was typically

between 5-10cm but with more tussocky areas that reached 20cm. Grass species included

abundant perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne, frequent false oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius

and occasional annual meadow-grass Poa annua. Additional species recorded in rare

occurrence included cock’s-foot Dactylis glomerata, timothy Phleum pratense and Yorkshire

fog Holcus lanatus.


13


Photograph 2: Field margin adjacent to hedgerow H1 looking north

3.22 Herb species composition and abundance varied along the margins and included rarely

occurring broadleaf plantain Plantago major, common ragwort Senecio jacobaea, creeping

buttercup Ranunculus repens and daisy Bellis perennis.

3.23 A small area dominated by species characteristic of ephemeral/disturbed habitats was

recorded along the western margin. This encompassed areas of bare earth with locally

occasional patches of bryophytes, groundsel Senecio vulgaris and ribwort plantain Plantago

lanceolata alongside rare occurrences of dandelion Taraxacum sp. agg. and sun spurge

Euphorbia helioscopia. Potential garden escapes were noted further south, adjacent to the

domestic boundary which included periwinkle Vinca minor and a current Ribes sp.

3.24 The field margins also supported a small number of tall ruderal species which included locally

occasional patches of cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris in more shaded areas, and rare

occurrence of broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius and common nettle Urtica dioica.

Tall Ruderal

3.25 Within the south-west corner of the site, adjacent to the entrance was a small area of tall

ruderal vegetation dominated by common nettle with abundant cleavers Galium aparine,

frequent false oat-grass and occasional cow parsley. Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum and

hogweed Heracleum sphondylium were recorded in rare occurrence.

Hedgerows

3.26 Present along the site boundaries were two hedgerows which were of moderate ecological

value (Table 4). Only hedgerow H2 qualified as a habitat of principle importance under

Section 41 of the NERC Act and contained over 80% native species. Neither hedgerow was

considered important under the Hedgerow Regulations. Table 4 provides a summary of the

composition of each hedgerow present on the site.


14


Table 4: Summary of the Extent of the Hedgerows and their Ecological Value

Hedgerow Species HEGS Grade

Important Under Hedgerow Regulations

Contains >80% Native Species

H1 C.sp., Ia, Pa, L.sp. M.sp. Sn

3 No Yes

H2 Cm, Fe, Ps, Sn 3 No Yes

Key to hedgerow species: C.sp. Cotoneaster sp. – cotoneaster species, Cm Crataegus monogyna -

hawthorn, Fe Fraxinus excelsior – ash, Ia Ilex aquifolium – holly, L.sp. Laurus sp. – Laurel species,

M.sp. Mahonia sp. – mahonia species, Pa Prunus avium – wild cherry, Ps Prunus spinose - blackthorn,

Sn Sambucus nigra - elder

3.27 Hedgerow H1 formed a domestic boundary along the southern part of the western boundary,

adjacent to the site entrance (Photograph 2). This hedgerow was intensively managed and

contained a high proportion of non-native and ornamental species which included

Cotoneaster sp., laurel Laurus sp., Mahonia sp. as well as a small section of native holly Ilex

aquifolium. The ground flora comprised mostly tall ruderal species which included common

nettle, cow parsley, cleaves and bramble Rubus fruticosus agg..

3.28 Hedgerow H2 ran along the northern boundary parallel to the wet ditch, separating the site

from the sewage works. At the time of the survey the hedgerow was unmanaged and

dominated by hawthorn Crataegus monogyna. Additional canopy species included occasional

elder Sambucus nigra and rare occurrence of blackthorn Prunus spinosa alongside a single

semi-mature ash Fraxinus excelsior standard. The ground flora was largely species-poor

with wood avens Geum urbanum, lords-and-ladies Arum maculatum, garlic mustard,

hogweed, nettle and willowherb Epilobium sp.

Scattered Scrub and Trees

3.29 Areas of scattered scrub were present around the site perimeters, particularly along the

western boundary. This was dominated by hawthorn with frequent bramble and included

additional species such as and firethorn Pyracantha coccinea and rowan Sorbus aucuparia.

3.30 Along the southern boundary adjacent to the school playing field was a line of scattered

hawthorn with occasional dog-rose Rosa canina agg. and a small number of trees that included

ornamental maple Acer sp. var., sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus and wild cherry Prunus avium.

3.31 Short sections of Leyland cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii tree lines were also present

along the southern and western perimeters next to domestic boundaries, and a small number

of weeping willow Salix babylonica standards were recorded along the northern boundary

next to the wet ditch.

3.32 Mature trees were limited within the site and only recorded along the northern and southern

boundaries. These mainly comprised weeping willow, ash and sycamore.

Waterbodies

3.33 A wet ditch ran along the western and northern site boundaries. This flowed from two

culverts present along the western boundary (TN1, Figure 2 & Photograph 3). The channel

was approximately 0.5m wide with banks 45°-70° and generally between 2-3m high. Water

levels were less than 5cm at the southern end and c.10cm depth along the northern section


15


of the channel. The predominant substrate was mud and silt with occasional gravel, and

there was a slow flow from south to north. This flow increased off-site where an additional

culvert was located on the eastern side of the off-site sewage works further north.

Photograph 3: Culvert and channel looking

north

3.34 Aquatic / emergent vegetation was limited to blanket weed Spirogyra adnate and a single

patch of lesser pond sedge Carex acutiformis adjacent to the culverts. Much of the western

bank was shaded by bramble and hawthorn scrub and towards the north tall ruderal species

including willowherb, broad-leaved dock, hogweed, common nettle and garlic mustard

dominated the banks (TN2, Figure 2). Additional species recorded along the banks included

rare occurrences of lesser celandine Ficaria verna, celery-leaved buttercup Ranunculus

sceleratus, hairy bittercress Cardamine hirsuta, field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis and

water dock Rumex hydrolapathum.

Other

3.35 A pile of brick rubble and brash covered in moss was noted adjacent to the domestic

boundary along the south of the site, as indicated by target note TN3 (Figure 2).

Fauna

Badger

3.36 During the survey no evidence of badgers such as setts, latrines, hairs or footprints were

recorded within or immediately adjacent the site boundary.


16


Bats

Tree Roost Assessment

3.37 The majority of the trees on site were early-mature or semi-mature and in overall good

condition. A small number of mature weeping willow were present along the northern

boundary towards the north-western corner of the site, however no features suitable to

support roosting bats were noted among these.

3.38 None of the remaining trees present within the site were assessed as having potential to

support roosting bats (in accordance with Table 1).


3.39 The perimeter hedgerows and tree lines, wet ditch and areas of scattered scrub provided

potential foraging and commuting habitat for bats, whilst the arable land and associated field

margins was considered to provide limited foraging potential.

Birds

3.40 Species recorded during the survey included blackbird Turdus merula, house sparrow Passer

domesticus and pigeon Columba palumbus along the western boundary, predominantly

within the scrub adjacent to the domestic boundary.

Great Crested Newts

3.41 The wet ditch was the only waterbody present on the site, and was considered unsuitable to

support GCN given the lack of aquatic/marginal vegetation and use as a drain for the

surrounding arable land. Furthermore the HSI result for this feature (0.58) indicated a ‘below

average’ suitability for GCN.

3.42 The majority of the terrestrial habitat comprised arable land with poor semi-improved

grassland margins. These had a largely short and homogenous sward and were considered

unsuitable as resting / shelter habitat for GCN and negligible value as foraging or commuting

habitat. Limited suitable habitat was present in the form of hedgerow bases and areas of tall

ruderal vegetation along the wet ditch.

3.43 A total of seven ponds were identified from an examination of aerial imagery and OS maps

within 500m of the site (Figure 3). Pond P1 was located approximately 70m to the south, in

the corner of a field surrounded by hawthorn and bramble scrub and was almost dry at the

time of the survey. The HSI result for this pond (0.47) indicated ‘poor’ suitability for GCN

(Appendix B).

3.44 Pond P2 was a large ornamental garden pond approximately 200m2 in area, located c.260m

to the south of the site within a residential garden. Limited marginal vegetation included

stands of willowherb and the pond was surrounded by intensively managed grassland. At the

time of the survey the presence of waterfowl was confirmed and the pond was considered likely

to be stocked with fish. The HSI result for P2 (0.55) indicated ‘average’ suitability for GCN.

3.45 Pond P4 was a small field pond located approximately 420m to the south, within agricultural

land. Marginal/aquatic vegetation was absent and the water quality was poor, with abundant


17


duckweed and algal growth on the surface. The HSI result for P4 of 0.49 indicated ‘below

average’ suitability for GCN.

3.46 Ponds P5 and P6 were located approximately 550m and 400m to the north respectively.

Pond P5 was a large ornamental pond located within a residential garden to the east of

Cropwell Bishop Road and was heavily vegetated with bull rush Typha latifolia. The HSI

result of 0.72 indicated ‘good’ suitability for GCN.

3.47 Pond P6 was located within a hedgerow junction, shaded by surrounding willow trees and

hawthorn scrub. The HSI result of 0.68 also indicated ‘average’ suitability for GCN.

3.48 It was not possible to undertake a HSI assessment of pond P3 at the time of the survey. This

pond was located approximately to the 280m south of the application site, and was separated

from the site by sub-optimal habitat comprising a road, hardstanding and managed grassland.

Reptiles

3.49 No evidence of reptiles was noted during the survey; small areas of tall ruderal vegetation

around the edges of the field compartment provided some structural diversity however this

was only present in limited areas, mostly along the steep banks along the west ditch. Other

habitats including scattered scrub and the areas of rubble provided potential though limited

places of shelter. The majority of the site was considered to be unsuitable to support reptiles

due to the cultivated nature of the arable land.

3.50 The site is isolated from other areas of suitable habitat by residential development and further

arable land. Given the above and the small size of the site it is considered unlikely to be

capable of supporting a viable reptile population.

Water Vole

3.51 Four water vole records were returned from the NBGRC from over 950m to the south-west of

the site, associated with Grantham Canal LWS.

3.52 A wet ditch ran along the western boundary, the banks of which were generally steep and

densely vegetated with tall ruderal and bramble scrub. The channel contained very little

vegetation suitable for water voles to feed upon, and the high banks, often over shaded by

trees and scrub, were considered unsuitable for water voles to burrow in.

3.53 No evidence of the presence of water voles was recorded during the survey. The water level

was low at the time of the survey (average depth c.10cm) and there was a lack of suitable

vegetation. The ditch was therefore considered to provide sub-optimal habitat for this species.

Invertebrates

3.54 Five butterfly species were recorded commuting along the field perimeters during the survey:

small tortoiseshell Aglais urticae, brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni, small white Pieris rapae,

peacock Aglais io and large white Pieris brassicae.


18


Other Protected and Notable Species

3.55 Records of brown hare and hedgehog were returned during the desktop study which

indicated their presence in the local area, however no evidence or potentially suitable habitats

for any other protected, rare or notable species were recorded present during the site survey.


19


4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Sites of Nature Conservation Value

4.1 No statutory designated sites of international importance were identified within 15km of the

application site, and no statutory sites of national importance within 2km.

4.2 Three non-statutory designated sites are located within 1km of the site, the closest being

Hoehill Pasture LWS located approximately 520m west of the site. At over 500m distant

these designations will not be subject to land take, and no direct effects, such as dust

pollution or noise, are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. The scheme is

not anticipated likely to result in a significant increase in recreational disturbance or adverse

impact to the nature conservation value of any such site. Furthermore, there is potential

within the proposals to incorporate areas of public open space that will create alternative

onsite recreational activities, further reducing any increase in recreational pressure on off-site

areas. As such, no significant adverse effects to these non-statutory designations are

anticipated and their presence is not considered to be a constraint to the development.

Habitats

4.3 The degree to which habitats receive consideration within the planning system relies on a

number of mechanisms, including:

Inclusion within a specific policy, for example veteran trees and ancient woodland within

the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF);

A non-statutory site designation (e.g. LWS);

Habitats considered as habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity

as listed within Section 41 of NERC;

Habitats identified as being a Priority Habitat within the local Biodiversity Action Plan

(Nottinghamshire BAP).

4.4 The habitats identified during the survey which fall within the above listed categories are

native hedgerows, arable field margins and ditches.

4.5 Under the NPPF development should seek to contribute a net gain in biodiversity with an

emphasis on improving ecological networks and linkages where possible.

Arable land and Field Margins

4.6 The cultivated arable habitat that comprised the majority of the site was of low intrinsic and

conservation importance, with no rare or notable species recorded.

4.7 Arable margins were more than 2m in width in some areas. These were not considered to

meet the criteria for qualification as a NERC habitat of principal importance or as a priority

habitat within the Nottinghamshire LBAP however due to their species-poor character, the

lack of regular management and their widespread and common occurrence locally.

4.8 Whilst not of notable botanical significance the field margins provide opportunities for a

number of species to commute and forage within the site, and the western and northern field

margins provided connectivity to the adjacent wet ditch. It is therefore recommended that


20


these are retained and managed where possible as part of the site green infrastructure, to

provide continued habitat connectivity around the site for a range of local fauna.

4.9 The loss of any marginal habitat can be compensated for through the incorporation of native

species-rich and/or tussock-forming grassland within the site green infrastructure. Further

mitigation and habitat diversity will be provided through the creation of residential gardens.

Tall Ruderal

4.10 The tall ruderal vegetation within the south-east corner of the site and along the banks of the

wet ditch provided some botanical and structural diversity at site level but were dominated by

species that are common and widespread in the region. The removal of these habitats to

facilitate the development is therefore not considered an ecological constraint.

Hedgerows

4.11 Hedgerows dominated by native species are classified as a Habitat of Principal Importance

under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006 and are a priority habitat within the Nottinghamshire

BAP. Only hedgerow H2 along the northern boundary was dominated by native species and

consequently met this criterion. The HEGS grade indicated moderate value and this

hedgerow provided some suitable foraging and commuting opportunities to local wildlife and

therefore was considered to be of Local ecological value. Hedgerow H2 also functioned as a

screen for the adjacent sewage treatment works.

4.12 It is recommended that hedgerows be retained intact where possible within the scheme. The

unavoidable loss of any hedgerow habitat can be mitigated for via the creation of new

hedgerows of at least equal length to that lost, the enhancement and/or extension of retained

hedgerows and boundary habitats adjacent to the neighbouring residential areas, and via

additional native species shrub and tree planting provided as part of the landscaping scheme.

4.13 Hedgerows that are to be retained should be suitably protected during construction activities

i.e. working methods should adhere to standard best practice guidance including BS5837

Trees in Relation to Construction – Recommendations: 2012 for trees and hedges.

4.14 Where possible, retained and newly planted hedgerows should not form boundaries of private

gardens, in order to protect them from subsequent removal and/or fragmentation by residents.

Scattered Scrub and Trees

4.15 Scattered scrub was present alongside the banks of the wet ditch at the site perimeter, and

adjacent to the school playing field to the south. Although limited in extent this habitat

provided some additional species and structural diversity within the site, and suitable foraging

opportunities and cover for a range of common fauna. It is recommended that areas of native

scrub are retained where possible, however any unavoidable loss could be mitigated via new

native species planting within areas of public open space to ensure no net loss to biodiversity.

4.16 As there are only a small number of mature trees within the site it is recommended that these

are retained where possible within the development and suitably protected during

construction activities i.e. working methods should adhere to standard best practice guidance

including BS5837 as above.


21


4.17 If any trees are to be removed to facilitate the development then replacements should be

provided within the site green infrastructure. It is recommended that these be locally

occurring native tree species and/or flower/fruit/seed bearing species in order to enhance the

value of the site for foraging wildlife.

Waterbodies

4.18 The shallow wet ditch along the western boundary lacked in-channel vegetation and was

considered to be of low ecological value. The algal growth present indicated that run-off from

the adjacent fields is likely to have resulted in high nutrient levels. Ditches are however a

Priority Habitat within the Nottinghamshire BAP therefore it is recommended that the scheme

design aims to maintain a vegetated buffer alongside the ditch on the western boundary.

4.19 The ditch will be at risk of contamination by foul water from the application site during the

construction phase. In order to minimise the risk of disturbance or pollution of retained and

neighbouring habitats the good practice guidance set out within GPP521

should be followed at

all times. All personnel must be familiar with the content of these guidelines prior to

commencing works. This includes but is not limited to the following:

There should be no site run-off of water or mud.

Any spillages (e.g. diesel) should be cleaned up immediately.

All fuel will be stored in double skinned tanks or tanks in a suitable bunded area, designed

to hold 110% of the tank’s capacity, in compliance with the Control of Pollution (Oil

Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. All connections shall be situated within the bund.

Re-fuelling activities will only be undertaken in designated areas, by suitably qualified

persons. Toolbox talks will be communicated to site staff and contractors so that they are

fully informed of refuelling procedures.

Pumps and generators used on the site will have integral drip trays where possible. All

items of plant without an integral drip tray shall be stored over a portable drip tray. Any

cleaning/arisings from drip trays etc. is to be disposed of as hazardous waste in

accordance with Environment Agency guidance and current legislation.

All hazardous liquids e.g. oils, lubricants, chemicals and tins of paint are to be stored in a

segregated area in a suitable locked Control of Substances Hazardous to Health

(COSHH) container and in accordance with the products Safety Data Sheet. COSHH

assessments will be available nearby for information in the event of a spillage.

A spill response kit will be available onsite and accessible to all to control pollution

incidents.

Fauna

4.20 Principal pieces of legislation protecting wild species are Part 1 of the Wildlife and

Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) (WCA) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species

Regulations 2017. Some species, for example badgers, also have their own protective

legislation (Protection of Badger Act 1992). The impact that this legislation has on the

Planning system is outlined in ODPM 06/2005 Government Circular: Biodiversity and

Geological Conservation - Statutory Obligations and their Impact within the Planning System.

21

2018 Guidance for Pollution Prevention – Works and maintenance in or near water: GPP5.


22


4.21 This guidance states that as the presence of protected species is a material consideration in

any planning decision, it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and

the extent to which they are affected by proposals is established prior to planning permission

being granted. Furthermore, where protected species are present and proposals may result

in harm to the species or its habitat, steps should be taken to ensure the long-term protection

of the species, such as through attaching appropriate planning conditions.

4.22 In addition to protected species, there are those that are otherwise of conservation merit,

such as species of principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity under the

NERC Act 2006.

4.23 The implications that identified species, or those that are thought reasonably likely to occur,

may have for developmental design are outlined below:

Badger

4.24 Badgers are a widespread species that are protected from harm and cruelty by the Protection

of Badgers Act 1992. No evidence of the present of badger were recorded within or within

30m of the study area where accessible. A single badger record was identified during the

desk study from within c.1.5km of the site boundary which comprised a sett record from 2014.

4.25 The arable habitat provided a limited foraging resource for badgers. Given the wide

availability of suitable habitat for this species in the surrounding area and the absence of

foraging evidence within the site, it is considered to provide no more than low value foraging

habitat for any badger clan that may be present locally.

4.26 Enhancement such as native tree planting and gapping up of hedgerows to create significant

linkages around the site and linking to adjacent off-site habitats would benefit this species.

Development of the site is therefore considered very unlikely to have a negligible impact upon

badgers, should this species be present locally.

4.27 To minimise the risk of harm to badgers and other terrestrial vertebrates any trenches or

other deep excavations created within the development site will be left with a sloping end or a

ramp to prevent animals, including badgers, from becoming trapped, or will be suitably

covered before dusk to prevent any passing animals falling in. Careful consideration will also

be given to the location of topsoil storage mounds that can readily become used by badgers

for the creation of new setts.

Bats

4.28 Bats and their habitats are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as

amended) and by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. In summary

this makes it an offence to damage, destroy or obstruct any place used by bats for breeding

and shelter, disturb a bat, or kill, injure or take a bat. Seven bat species are listed as Species

of Principal Importance under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006.

Tree Roost Assessment

4.29 There are no built structures within the site and none of the trees present within the site

boundary were considered to offer any roosting opportunities for bats as they lacked suitable


23


features such as rot holes, cracks/fissures or loose bark. Bat roosts or potential roosts are

therefore not a statutory constraint to the proposed works.


4.30 The majority of the site comprised an arable field of negligible value to foraging/commuting

bats. Boundary hedgerows, tree lines and scattered scrub provided connectivity to the wider

countryside where more suitable habitat such as woodland and standing water are present.

4.31 It is recommended that trees and hedgerows are retained where possible to maintain

connectivity around the site perimeter and link to off-site habitats as outlined above. Any

unavoidable loss of hedgerow should be mitigated via new hedgerow planting. Furthermore,

creation of a pond, species-rich grassland and/or areas of native species scrub and tree

planting would provide enhanced foraging areas for the local bat population.

4.32 The planting scheme should favour native fruit and flower-bearing species that will support an

invertebrate assemblage that will in turn provide a foraging resource for insectivorous

species, including bats.

4.33 To further minimise potential impacts to the local bat population, artificial lighting should be

carefully designed adjacent to existing and new potential bat foraging areas including tree

groups, hedgerows and waterbodies. Where artificial lighting cannot be avoided the lighting

scheme should be designed with reference to the Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of

Lighting Professionals guidance22,23,24

and designed to reduce spill and be downwardly

directional. All new lighting should meet the current environmental standards of good

practice in order to reduce potential light pollution, and will use the lowest intensity possible

for its purpose. This will minimise light spill onto foraging routes and disturbance caused

through the lighting of corridors and potential roost sites.

4.34 Given the proposed retention and buffering of features of notable value to local bat

populations (perimeter hedgerows and trees), and the implementation of a sensitive lighting

scheme, impacts will be limited to habitats of negligible value to bats (arable field). No further

survey is therefore considered necessary.

Birds

4.35 Due to the low botanical diversity of the arable field and grassland margins the site is of

limited value to urban edge bird species. However, these habitats had potential as foraging

and nesting habitat for ground nesting birds such as lapwing Vanellus vanellus and skylark

Alauda arvensis, though neither species were recorded during the phase 1 survey. Given the

remaining larger eastern area of the field and the availability of surrounding farmland within

the wider landscape the loss of these habitats will not have a significant impact upon the local

populations of these species if present in the local area.

4.36 The hedgerows, scattered scrub and trees provide suitable nesting habitat for a range of bird

species potentially present in the local area and species recorded during the survey. These

22

Bat Conservation Trust. 2009. Bats and Lighting in the UK. Bats and the Built Environment Series. 23

Bat Conservation Trust. 2011. Statement on the Impact and Design of Artificial Light on Bats. 24

Institute of Lighting Professionals. 2011. Guidance notes for the reduction of Obtrusive Light.


24


include priority species under the S41 of the NERC Act 2006, and BOCC Amber and Red List

species such as song thrush Turdus philomelos and yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella.

4.37 The proposed retention and enhancement of the existing hedgerow and the establishment of

areas of new species-rich grassland, tree and shrub habitats including berry and fruit-bearing

of value to foraging birds would help minimise potential impacts that may result from minor

loss of suitable habitats.

4.38 Additional enhancements such as tree planting are recommended around the site which will

create suitable habitat for urban edge species such as dunnock Prunella modularis and

house sparrow Passer domesticus, both NERC Act 2006 Species of Principal Importance.

4.39 The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) protects wild birds and their eggs from

intentional harm, and makes it illegal to intentionally take, damage, or destroy a wild bird nest

while it is in use or being built. Any removal of woody vegetation including hedgerow sections

and trees and ground vegetation cover should therefore occur outside of the bird breeding

season (i.e. avoiding March to August inclusive) to minimise the risk of disturbance to

breeding birds, including ground nesting species. If this is not possible such vegetation must

be checked prior to removal by a suitably experienced ecologist to confirm the absence of

active nests. If active nests are found, vegetation must be left undisturbed and suitably

buffered from works until all birds have fledged. Specific advice should be sought prior to

undertaking the clearance.

Great Crested Newts

4.40 The GCN records identified a part of the desk study were located among good quality

terrestrial habitats (scrub/grassland/hedgerow) c.1.5km to the north-west of the application

site, with sub-optimal habitat (arable and road) between the ponds and the site.

4.41 The wet ditch on site was considered unsuitable to support breeding GCN given the shallow

channel, lack of marginal/aquatic vegetation. Suitable terrestrial habitat was limited to

hedgerow bases and areas of tall ruderal vegetation which provided potential suitable

sheltering and commuting habitat.

4.42 No ponds were present within the site boundary. Of the five ponds that were subject to

detailed survey, pond P1 was almost dry at the time of the survey and was considered

unsuitable to support GCN. Pond P2 was located c.260m south of the site within a residential

garden where the surrounding short managed grassland provided unsuitable terrestrial

habitat. Ponds P3 and P4 were located c.280m and c.420m to the south and were further

isolated from the application site by roads, hard standing, and arable land.

4.43 Ponds P5 and P6 were respectively located c.400m and 450m to the north of the site. Whilst

the HSI assessment suggested that P5 had ‘good’ suitability for GCN it is isolated from the

site by Cropwell Bishop Road and sub-optimal intervening habitat. Pond P6 was located

within a hedgerow junction adjacent to a ditch, however there were no hydrological

connections to the site. At these distances and given the presence of suitable terrestrial

habitat surrounding these ponds and limited suitable terrestrial habitat within the application

site, it is considered very unlikely that should GCN be present within these ponds that

individuals would commute onto the proposed development site. The potential presence of

GCN is therefore not a statutory constraint to the proposals.


25


4.44 Appropriate working methods will nevertheless be applied in order to further minimise the low

risk of potential harm to the species, such as the use of precautionary strimming methods as

outlined below. Through the application of such measures the proposals would be complaint

with the requirements of the Regulations.

Reptiles

4.45 No evidence of reptiles was recorded during site survey. Habitats suitable for reptiles were

limited to hedge banks and small areas of tall ruderal vegetation around the edges of the field

compartment, and the site was considered to be isolated from suitable reptile habitat by the

surrounding built development, roads and arable fields.

4.46 It is therefore very unlikely that the site would support a viable reptile population and no

further surveys are considered necessary.

4.47 A precautionary approach is nevertheless recommended as best practice in order to further

minimise the risk of harm to individual reptiles, which have a low risk of being present on site

at the time of works. Appropriate precautionary works comprise the directional strimming of

tall ruderal habitats prior to site clearance works, and the subsequent maintenance of on-site

habitats with a short sward throughout works to minimise the potential for reptiles and other

fauna being harmed. Similarly, care should be taken to store building materials off the

ground, for example on pallets, to avoid creating temporary refugia for local fauna.

Water Vole

4.48 The wet ditch was considered to provide sub-optimal habitat for this species, and no evidence

of water vole such as burrows, tracks or feeding signs were recorded during the survey. The

ditch supported limited vegetation suitable for water vole to feed on, however there remains

potential for it to act as a corridor through which water vole could commute through the wider

landscape on an occasional basis. It is therefore recommended that a grassland/ shrub

buffer of minimum width 5m is implemented along the edge of ditch to avoid direct impacts to

the watercourse during works and to provide a corridor of suitable habitat to minimise

potential effects to water vole should this species be present locally.

Invertebrates

4.49 The arable habitats that dominate the site are of negligible value to invertebrate species.

Hedgerows and tall ruderal vegetation however are suitable for use by a range of common

and widespread invertebrates, including the five butterfly species recorded during the site

survey. Such habitats are common within the wider countryside, as are the suitable larval

food plants including nettles, wild crucifers and cultivated brassicas. The loss of non-arable

habitats of value to butterflies and other invertebrates can be mitigated and compensated for

within the landscaping scheme, therefore invertebrate species are not considered to be a

constraint to the development.

Other Protected and Notable Species

4.50 The site provides limited suitable habitat for brown hare and hedgehog, and given the amount

of similar habitat in the surrounding countryside the loss of the site to development is not

considered to have a significant effect of the resources available for these species. The


26


potential presence of brown hare and hedgehog in the local area is therefore not considered

a constraint to the development of the site.

Biodiversity Enhancements

4.51 In line with the NPPF, it is recommended that the development of the site aims to provide a

nett biodiversity gain by incorporating ecological enhancement measures where possible

within the development. The following are measures are recommended for this site:

Soft landscaping should include native and ecologically valuable species to enhance the

biodiversity across the site. The use of non-native species with overly complex flower

structure and those of an invasive nature such as cotoneasters should be avoided;

If Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) are to be used within the development, any

water attenuation or storage features should preferably be designed to provide habitat for

wildlife as well as function for drainage. Suitable features include shallow sloping muddy

banks and tussocky or longer sward grassland around the margins. Only native aquatic

plants should be used, and if feasible, ponds should be designed to have an area that

holds water at all times; and

Small gaps (c.15cm wide and tall) should be provided in the corners of garden fences to

permit access for wildlife such as hedgehog.


27


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposed development will not adversely impact any site designated for nature

conservation interest.

6.2 The arable habitats that dominate the site were of negligible ecological value though offered

some potential for ground nesting birds. Perimeter habitats comprising hedgerows and

associated trees, a wet ditch and associated areas of tall ruderal vegetation do however

provide some limited structural diversity, connectivity and foraging opportunities for wildlife

including bats and birds, and nesting opportunities for common farmland and urban edge bird

species. Hedgerows and ditches are additionally habitats of principal importance as identified

by S41 of the NERC Act

6.3 It is therefore recommended that hedgerows are retained as far as practicable within the

scheme, and appropriately buffered with native species planting. Furthermore it is

recommended that an appropriate vegetated buffer is maintained along the wet ditch to help

maintain its ecological function as a habitat corridor.

6.4 The loss of grassland habitat can be mitigated for within the landscaping scheme via the

creation of smaller areas of more species-diverse native grassland within the green

infrastructure. The proposed network of residential gardens and native tree / shrub planting

will provide further ecological enhancement. The scheme is expected to result in no net loss

of biodiversity from the site, and appropriate design of the planting scheme has potential to

provide an overall nett biodiversity gain at the site level.

6.5 The onsite ditch was considered unsuitable to support breeding GCN, and terrestrial habitat

within the application site was also sub-optimal for this species. The presence of GCN or

other amphibian species on site is considered highly unlikely as all waterbodies within the

local area are effectively isolated from the site by barriers to dispersal including roads and

intensively managed arable land.

6.6 Reptiles have no more than a low likelihood of being present on site. A precautionary

working method statement is recommended to enable the safe dispersal of any reptile

present, prior to the commencement of site works.

6.7 No other potential ecological constraints were identified.


28


APPENDIX A: BOTANICAL SPECIES LIST

Common Name Scientific Name Abundance

(DAFOR)

Arable

Cleavers Galium aparine R

Dandelion Taraxacum sp. agg. LF

False-oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius R

Field speedwell Veronica persica R

Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata R

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne R

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata R

Arable Field Margins

Annual meadow-grass Poa annua O

Broadleaf plantain Plantago major R

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius R

Cleavers Galium aparine R

Cock's-foot Dactylis glomerata R

Common cornsalad Valerianella locusta R

Common mallow Malva sylvestris R

Common nettle Urtica dioica R

Common ragwort Senecio jacobaea R

Common wheat Triticum aestivum R

Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris LO

Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens R

Current Ribes sp. R

Cut-leaved crane's-bill Geranium dissectum R

Daisy Bellis perennis R

Dandelion Taraxacum sp. agg. R

Dove's-foot cranesbill Geranium molle R

False-oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius F

Field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis R



Groundsel Senecio vulgaris LO

Hairy bittercress Cardamine hirsuta LF

Lesser burdock Arctium minus R

Moss Bryophytes LO

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne A

Periwinkle Vinca minor R

Ribwort plantain Plantago lanceolata LO

Sun spurge Euphorbia helioscopia R

Timothy Phleum pratense R

White clover Trifolium repens LF

Yorkshire-fog Holcus lanatus R


29



(DAFOR)

Tall Ruderal

Common nettle Urtica dioica D

Common teasel Dipsacus fullonum R

Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris O

False-oat grass Arrhenatherum elatius F

Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium R

Hedgerow and Trees

Apple Malus domestica R

Ash Fraxinus excelsior R

Blackthorn Prunus spinosa R

Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. O

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O

Cleavers Galium aparine O

Common Nettle Urtica dioica F

Cotoneaster Cotoneaster sp. R

Cow Parsley Anthriscus sylvestris O

Dog-rose Rosa canina agg. R

Elder Sambucus nigra O

Elm Ulmus sp. R



Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna D

Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium O

Holly Ilex aquifolium O

Ivy Hedera helix O

Laurel Laurus sp. R

Leyland cypress Cupressocyparis leylandii O

Lords-and-ladies Arum maculatum R

Mahonia Mahonia sp. R

Maple Acer sp. var. R

Rowan Sorbus aucuparia R

Sycamore Acer pseudoplatanus R

Weeping willow Salix babylonica R

Wild cherry Prunus avium R

Willow Salix sp. R

Willowherb Epilobium sp. R

Wood avens Geum urbanum R

Scrub

Blackthorn Prunus spinosa R

Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. F

Dog Rose Rosa canina agg. O

Elder Sambucus nigra R

https://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/5959/i-Dipsacus-fullonum-i/Details


30



(DAFOR)

Firethorn Pyracantha coccinea R

Hawthorn Crataegus monogyna D

Laurel Laurus sp. R

Rowan Sorbus aucuparia R

Brook

Bramble Rubus fruticosus agg. R

Broadleaf plantain Plantago major R

Broad-leaved dock Rumex obtusifolius O

Celery-leaved buttercup Ranunculus sceleratus R

Cleavers Galium aparine O

Common cornsalad Valerianella locusta R

Common nettle Urtica dioica LA

Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris R

Creeping thistle Cirsium arvense O

Curled dock Rumex crispus R

Dandelion Taraxacum sp. agg. O

False oat-grass Arrhenatherum elatius F

Field forget-me-not Myosotis arvensis R



Great willowherb Epilobium hirsutum LO

Hairy bittercress Cardamine hirsuta R

Hedge woundwort Stachys sylvatica R

Herb-robert Geranium robertianum R

Hogweed Heracleum sphondylium R

Lesser celandine Ficaria verna R

Lesser pond sedge Carex acutiformis R

Lords-and-ladies Arum maculatum R

Moss Bryophytes R

Nipplewort Lapsana communis R

Opium poppy Papaver somniferum R

Perennial rye-grass Lolium perenne A

Red deadnettle Lamium purpureaum R

Water dock Rumex hydrolapathum R

White clover Trifolium repens R

Willowherb Epilobium sp. R

Wood avens Geum urbanum R


31


APPENDIX B: HABITAT SUITABILITY INDEX SCORES

SI -1 SI - 2 SI -3 SI -4 SI -5 SI -6 SI -7 SI -8 SI -9 SI -10

Pond Number

Geo

gra

ph

ica

l

Lo

cati

on

Po

nd

Are

a

Po

nd

Dry

ing

Wate

r Q

uality

Sh

ad

e

Fo

wl

Fis

h

Po

nd

s

Terr

estr

ial H

ab

itat

Mac

rop

hyte

s

HSI score

Pond Suitability

D1 1 0.05 1 0.67 1 1 0.67 0.89 0.67 0.3 0.58 Below

Average

P1 1 0.05 0.1 0.67 0.9 1 1 0.89 0.67 0.3 0.47 Poor

P2 1 0.40 0.9 0.33 1 0.67 0.67 0.89 0.33 0.35 0.59 Average

P4 1 0.05 0.5 0.33 1 1 1 0.89 0.33 0.35 0.49 Below

Average

P5 1 0.50 0.9 0.67 1 0.67 0.67 0.89 0.33 0.9 0.72 Good

P6 1 0.40 0.9 0.67 1 0.67 0.67 0.89 0.67 0.35 0.68 Average

Documents

August 2018 - Rushcliffe · or regionally important nature conservation importance. ... (GCN) recorded present within the site. Onsite terrestrial habitats were sub-optimal and only